ECON Bernie Sanders Unearths the Fed’s Sordid Details

Bernie Sanders Unearths the Fed’s Sordid Details

http://www.progressive.org/wx120310.html

By Matthew Rothschild, December 3, 2010

So now we know, thanks to Sen. Bernie Sanders, some of the sordid details of the Federal Reserve Board’s “come and get it” policy. The Fed opened its vaults—our vaults—to the tune of $3.3 trillion in liquidity and $9 trillion in short-term low-interest loans to some of the world’s biggest banks. These included giant foreign banks, as well as Citigroup and Bank of America and other large domestic financial institutions.

Morgan Stanley got nearly $2 trillion. Citigroup got $1.8 trillion. Goldman Sachs got $600 billion.

Not only that, the Fed threw money at some of the biggest corporations in the land, including Caterpillar, General Electric, McDonald’s and Verizon.

These were loans with no interest, or almost no interest, at a time when American consumers and small businesses couldn’t find loans to save their lives.

Sen. Sanders wrote the law that required the Fed, against its wishes, to disclose who got all this money.

Sanders said the revelations are “astounding,” and he’s right.

He said, “The Fed failed to require loan recipients to invest in rebuilding our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans,” and he’s right again.

Even though the U.S. banks that got the easy loans held most of the country’s mortgages and credit cards, the Fed never insisted that they reduce the principal on their mortgages or the interest rates on the credit cards.

“How many Americans could have remained in their homes,” asked Sanders, “if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?”

Sanders smells a rate. “I suspect a large portion of these near-zero interest loans were used [by the banks] to buy Treasury securities at a higher interest rate,” he said, thus “providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country on the backs of American taxpayers.”

The financial bailout was a giant boondoggle, undemocratic and kleptocratic to its core.

Leave it to Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist in the Senate, to call it like it is. Most of the other Senators are in the pocket of the banks.

-----------------

ALSO SEE - Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders speaks heresy on Capitol Hill
 
Banks to Taxpayers: Get Over It

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/111517/banks-to-taxpayers-get-over-it

by David Weidner
Tuesday, December 7, 2010

In the throes of an investor panic in the fall of 2008, U.S. financial institutions stuck to their story: We're fine, trust us.

Last week, more than two years later, the Federal Reserve unveiled how those same financial institutions tapped emergency lending programs to survive. The final tally — $3.3 trillion in loans — exceeded even the most skeptical analyst expectations.

The Fed had been hesitant to release the data for fear it could rattle the markets. But the markets actually rose on Wednesday, the day of the release. I have a theory why, which we'll get into later.

The disclosure tells us a lot about how dire the situation was in the darkest days of the credit crisis, but it also tells us some important things about today's banking landscape: It's fragile, it's built on faith — and a lot of extraordinary backing.

The phrase "zombie" banks comes to mind when the numbers are laid bare: Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS - News) borrowed $61 billion in one overnight loan. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS - News) hit up the Fed 81 times for a combined $600 billion. Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C - News) and Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC - News) borrowed a combined $2.6 trillion under the Fed's primary dealer facility.

Even J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM - News) used the central bank's term auction facility seven times.

Oh, and the banks' way of saying thanks for all of this: Get over it.

$1.9 trillion for Morgan Stanley

Most banking institutions aren't only downplaying the drastic measures they took to keep the doors open day to day by suggesting it's all ancient history. They're arguing that what happened then has no bearing on what's happening now.

In other words, just because they were hiding their wounds then, doesn't mean they're hiding anything now.

Well, consider that in the fourth quarter of 2008 Goldman reported a loss of $2.12 billion. During that period, the bank borrowed $589 billion from the Fed in overnight loans. Yet, look at the press release announcing the fourth-quarter and annual results. Goldman makes no mention of its desperate borrowing. Instead it touts the fact it was profitable for the year. That loss? Well, it was just a tough quarter. See Goldman's fourth-quarter 2008 earnings release (pdf).

And when Morgan Stanley's John Mack was arguing in September 2008 that his firm had more than $100 billion in assets to ride out a potential run on the investment bank, he didn't mention that the bank was borrowing tens of billions from the Fed each night, ultimately tapping the central bank for more than $1.9 trillion, including the brokerage's foreign units. See story on Mack statements.

Today, the banks are giving us more positive statements. On Monday, B. of A. announced it has nearly met all of the obligations to exit the government's bank bailout program. Nineteen banks, including J.P. Morgan, will undergo another stress test so they can pay out more dividends to shareholders. See story on B. of A. bailout.

The lesson: disclosure

If's difficult to tell if the banks' swagger today is justified. Many have raised capital requirements, and in the case of brokerages such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman, we've been told risk is diminishing and proprietary trading desks are being reined in or sold off.

Moreover, the Fed's disclosure covers only the emergency programs it launched as the credit markets froze. It doesn't cover today's lending. We're told leverage is falling at these banks, but the Fed's lending rates are still near zero. Cash is cheap.

If there's a lesson to be learned from the Fed's bombshell, it's that a lack of disclosure usually means there's something to hide. In this case, we found out Barclays PLC (NYSE: BCS - News) and UBS AG (NYSE: UBS - News) also borrowed, a disclosure that irked Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent, who called the aid "astounding," and bristled at the notion banks weren't asked by the Fed to rebuild the economy.

"How many Americans could have remained in their homes," asked Sanders, in The Progressive. "if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?" Read Sanders' comments on Fed aid.

It would have been a better question had it been asked at the time. Unfortunately that gravy train has long since left the station.

The only reason the Fed even released the information was because Sanders inserted language into the Dodd-Frank bill that required the Fed to come clean. And now it's pretty clear Fed officials were reluctant about going public.

So, back to that earlier question about why the markets didn't flinch. Two reasons: first, it was just too late. The program shut down in early 2009. The market has been rallying. Emergency lending? Ancient history. Second, I think the numbers were so eye-popping they just didn't sound real. It's one thing to rattle the markets, but another to go shock and awe.

That's too bad, because if anything, the disclosure underscores how easily the banks can talk as if there's a little rain and wind as the hurricane crashes ashore.

"We're fine, trust us," just isn't good enough anymore.

David Weidner covers Wall Street for MarketWatch.
 

colonel holman

Veteran Member
Bernie is a raving commie... but he is always willing to speak the truth when it comes to the 'little guy' getting screwed. If this were USSR or Commie China, he would be despised by those PTB for standing up for the 'little guy in those regimes, even while promoting failed socialist agendas
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Bernie reminds me of Kucinich. May be Left, may even be nuts, but neither one is beholden to party politics and both will tell you what they think.
 
Bernie is a raving commie... but he is always willing to speak the truth when it comes to the 'little guy' getting screwed. If this were USSR or Commie China, he would be despised by those PTB for standing up for the 'little guy in those regimes, even while promoting failed socialist agendas

Correct. Usually the repressed minority is the one battling for the truth in this world, regardless of which society they're in. In this age, lies prevail and truth is disdained because our species is now almost completely out of touch with God....Whom is eternal, unchanging, true love in my view. That's why there's so many different "points-of-view" and so little agreement at this juncture IMHO.

Right now the world is caught up in the insanity of an almost perfect "bipolar disorder" with extreme division between Left and Right, East and West, Communism and Capitalism....of which neither is right and neither is wrong in entirety. An explosive synthesis is near, and it might begin with the "Seoul" of this world and/or the "navel of the world" and human history, i.e., Jerusalem/Israel.

What's wrong that prevails in the current world is the division and conflict between the two poles and this must be historically resolved but neither side will "win".

Only true love wins in the long-run since THAT is the ultimate source of Creation, i.e., the e-motive (energy in motion) behind the Cause of all that is.
 
Last edited:

knepper

Veteran Member
Capitalism IS superior to Communism, SOT. It appears you are losing sight of that important fact. Since the Bible makes it clear that freedom is preferred over tyranny, that makes capitalism, by whatever name you want to give it, God's system of government. Since you seem to have fallen into the error of making them morally equivalent, a common leftist trick, I am concerned that you have been deceived on this vital point.
 
.......

Since the Bible makes it clear that freedom is preferred over tyranny, that makes capitalism, by whatever name you want to give it, God's system of government.



boy, that sure is some convoluted logic.
 
Capitalism IS superior to Communism, SOT. It appears you are losing sight of that important fact. Since the Bible makes it clear that freedom is preferred over tyranny, that makes capitalism, by whatever name you want to give it, God's system of government. Since you seem to have fallen into the error of making them morally equivalent, a common leftist trick, I am concerned that you have been deceived on this vital point.

Might I suggest turning off Glenn Beck and opening your Bible instead for your source of "truth"?

I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

And here is my judgment about what is best for you in this matter. Last year you were the first not only to give but also to have the desire to do so. Now finish the work, so that your eager willingness to do it may be matched by your completion of it, according to your means. For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have.

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” [2 Corinthians 8:8-15]

Neither "Capitalism" nor "Communism" is "superior" in the eyes of God IMHO. They both will serve their historical purpose and then the Kingdom of God will be realized through their fusion into a new social form.

As for the idea that I am deceived by a leftist trick, this is the height of arrogant folly on your part, but you'll realize the absurdity of your delusion on this score soon enough.

The problem for your Beckian perspective is that I'm likewise not fooled by a rightist trick.

BTW, this would be my right-wing scriptural reference:

Warning Against Idleness

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teachinga you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. [2 Thessalonians 3:6-15]
 
Last edited:
Since the Bible makes it clear that freedom is preferred over tyranny, that makes capitalism, by whatever name you want to give it, God's system of government.



boy, that sure is some convoluted logic.

Capitalism is a form of tyranny just as Communism, while both falsely claim to be antithetical to tyranny. In one you're enslaved by the masters of greed. In the other you're enslaved by the masters of fear.
 
..........

Capitalism is a form of tyranny just as Communism, while both falsely claim to be antithetical to tyranny. In one you're enslaved by the masters of greed. In the other you're enslaved by the masters of fear.




You've certainly hit that one on the head. However, look to the 'sources' of both today, in one case invented from scratch, in the other, taken over and consumed and controlled.
 
Top